There’s a fine line between stupidity and bigotry, and Santorum managed both in a flight of prejudice in which he equated homosexual sex with incest, polygamy, bigamy and adultery. He was commenting on a case before the Supreme Court to overturn a Texas law that criminalizes sexual acts between same-sex couples that are lawful between a man and a woman. His remark prompted an outcry from gay-rights groups and calls from Democrats for his resignation as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the party’s policy arm.
Unlike Trent Lott, who imploded last year after waxing nostalgic for the days of segregation, Santorum is not in any jeopardy of losing his leadership post. Social conservatives love Santorum. The 44-year-old father of five is an outspoken proselytizer for what he calls the traditional family. He says he has no problem with homosexuals; it’s homosexual acts he condemns. The distinction is popular within the evangelical community and stems from the religious teaching that Christians should separate the sin from the sinner. It’s a nonsensical position, but social conservatives are such a powerful force in the GOP that the Republican leadership right on up to President Bush doesn’t dare cut loose Santorum the way they did Lott.
Lott was in trouble because the base of the party was not firmly with him. They thought he made too many deals with the Democrats, and they didn’t trust him to keep his word. The base identifies with Santorum. He’s their champion. At the first hint of controversy, powerful figures on the right flooded the White House with calls warning “not to walk away from Rick.”
The White House is behind Santorum. More than anybody in the leadership, he’s their guy. Hardcore and ambitious, he goes to the wall for every Bush initiative and for every right-wing cause. He’s leading the party’s fight against reproductive cloning and stem-cell research, and is working to pass an exclusion to allow faith-based groups that receive federal money to practice discrimination in hiring that would otherwise be illegal.
Bush knows that to break with Santorum would cost him dearly with his conservative base. Asked for Bush’s reaction to Santorum’s broadside against gays, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reached new heights of verbal gymnastics. He said the president doesn’t typically comment on Supreme Court cases. When the reporter pointed out that Bush had spoken out quite a lot about the Michigan affirmative-action case currently before the court, Fleischer said, “That’s why I said–typically.” Fleischer did say, though, that the president thinks Santorum is “an inclusive man.” When it comes to entertainment, Fleischer is on his way to matching the Iraqi information minister.
There are few votes in the gay community for Bush. The key to his re-election is the voters in middle America, who take offense at picking on any group, whether blacks or gays. “Soccer moms don’t feel comfortable with a gay teacher for their child, and they’re not too hip about gays other than watching ‘Will and Grace’,” says a Republican consultant. “But they hate this mean-spirited rhetoric of the past. Santorum did a disservice to the party because he makes compassionate conservatism look like a new title for the same old book.”
This is a familiar dance for Bush. First you please your base, then you offer gestures to reclaim the center. During the 2000 primaries, he refused to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay GOP group. Then he had Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe, who is openly gay, speak at the GOP convention. Delegates bowed their heads and prayed during Kolbe’s speech. Bush will stay silent about Santorum and will avoid press availabilities over the next several days that might result in embarrassing questions. He doesn’t spend a lot of time with the press anyway, so his absence won’t be noted. Then in a few weeks or a few months, he’ll do the necessary repair work, inviting the leaders of gay groups to the White House or meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans.
Santorum won’t step away from his remarks, and he knows nobody will rein him in. He has held the flag for the Christian Right throughout the administration, and for Bush to distance himself from Santorum would be the equivalent of the senior Bush breaking his “no new taxes” pledge. Santorum could easily have said that he was misunderstood and still stand by the legal reasoning that he expressed. He believes the right to privacy was created by the Supreme Court to justify a woman’s right to choose an abortion and that extending out this right of privacy to protect sexual acts outside of traditional marriage undermines the family and invites deviant behavior.
Texas is one of 13 states with criminal sodomy laws still on the books and one of only four states that criminalizes sexual acts between homosexuals that are lawful within the confines of marriage between a man and woman. Not too long ago, gay-bashing was an accepted vote-getter for conservative Republicans. Santorum’s office says the calls are running three to one in his favor. It’s worth noting, since Santorum brought up “man on dog,” that Texas doesn’t have a law against bestiality.
title: “Capitol Letter Standing By Their Man” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-26” author: “Mary Maxwell”
Virginia Democrat Jim Moran’s comments at an antiwar meeting last week implied that Jews are to blame for the Bush administration’s drive for war against Iraq. Moran apologized, but the historical echoes that he awakened are so antithetical to what Democrats claim to stand for that he might as well bid goodbye to his political career.
On Friday, Moran stepped down from his position as a regional whip under pressure from Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. But that’s a fairly insignificant concession (there are 24 regional whips) and a far cry from the humiliation heaped on Lott. Some in the party are wondering why Moran is still around at all. One political analyst said he counseled two Democratic presidential campaigns to call for Moran’s resignation. “It would be a cheap way to reassure Jewish voters,” he said. “I don’t understand why they haven’t done it yet.”
One explanation could be that nobody really believes Moran is anti-Semitic.
But everyone knows he has lots of other problems. Moran is quick tempered and scandal prone with a reputation for popping off without regard for the consequences. His most recent brush with ethics violations involved accepting questionable loans from lobbyists. Too often during his seven terms in Congress, Moran’s personal and financial difficulties have overwhelmed his judgment. “I know him socially,” says a House Democratic aide. “It’s like he’s two people.”
Moran says his comments were blown out of proportion. He was answering a question from a woman who identified herself as Jewish and wondered why more Jews weren’t protesting the war. “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,” Moran said. “The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.”
Moran’s broad generalization didn’t take into account polls showing American Jews as ambivalent about waging a preemptive war as the rest of the population. At the same time, Jewish leaders who strongly backed President Clinton’s efforts to bring peace to the Middle East are inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on his war policy because Israel’s very existence could be threatened if Saddam Hussein remains in power.
What Moran said was stupid and insensitive, but is it a firing offense? The answer is probably yes. With war on the horizon and the spotlight on a handful of neoconservatives who happen to be Jewish shaping Bush’s views, Moran lit the fuse on a hot debate. Moran may not have intended his comments to be anti-Semitic, but what he said feeds the flames of anti-Semitism. If the war goes badly, people will be looking for scapegoats.
The controversy over Moran adds to a growing problem for Democrats who depend on Jewish votes and campaign contributions. The Republicans have a significant outreach program in the Jewish community. Bush’s solidarity with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has won him admiration from American Jews, even from those who disagree with Sharon’s hard-line policies. The Biblical identification that evangelical Christians feel with the Jewish holy lands has opened the door to a promising political alliance for the GOP.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of all people heads up the Republican effort to woo Jewish support. DeLay embodies the GOP’s Christian right. His views on issues like abortion rights and separation of church and state are anathema to the Jewish community, but his strong identification with Israel and his prominence in the Republican leadership have made him a valued friend.
Bush has vowed not to make the mistakes of his father, whose evenhandedness in the Middle East brought him the enmity of Jewish voters. The first Bush era of Republicans has no entree to this Bush. It goes beyond the father not wishing to interfere with the son to an outright exclusion of people like former secretary of State James Baker, who took the heat for the senior Bush’s attempt to pressure Israel for more concessions to the Palestinians.
Jewish Americans care about a lot of issues in addition to Israel, but Democrats can’t count on their loyalty if they don’t step up to challenges like the one Moran presents. Six prominent Democrats who are Jewish have announced they will not support Moran for reelection. Moran is expendable. He represents a safe Democratic district in northern Virginia where he is vulnerable to a primary challenge. Defending Moran is not worth straining the special relationship Democrats have with the Jewish community. Moran told Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, that “it’s unhealthy for the American political process for any group within our society to be able to decide who should and shouldn’t represent a constituency.” Moran predicted that millions of dollars would be spent to defeat him. Characteristically, he says he will not go quietly.
